Why isn't Kerry giving Democratic Congressional candidates talking points?

[dsc]

I went to see my local Congressional candidate speak and take questions. One of the questions she was asked was about the gas tax charges in Bush's ads against Kerry. She didn't know about Cheney nor Bush's economic advisor's having suggested a gas tax increase. Why is this? I told her about them and sent the details. But why, oh why, isn't Kerry or the DNC doing this? I live in one of the very, very few competitive districts in what is supposed to be the key state. This should be campaign 101. Kerry can't be everywhere. Our party's candidates are. Why not use our candidates?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. DCCC should be doing that

Are you at liberty to name the candidate? Just because it is a competative district doesn't mean that she is capable of running a competative campaign.

[dsc]

4. In a five person primary

she won with close to 60% of the vote. She outspent 3 of the other 4 but the 4th one spent almost the same as she. She has raised over $3 million. If Kerry's ability to do what he did makes him a good candidate I would say she is a phenominal one. Capri Cafaro is the name.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. She hasn't even raised 1% of $3 million

She only raised $24,290. She also gave $211,559 of her own money to her campaign. It doesn't appear that she has convinced that many people that she is capable of knocking off LaTourette. As of the end of March she had a grand total of $5,324 cash on hand compared to LaTourette's $685,061. She is either going to have to start raising money or put a lot of her own money into the campaign if she wants to remain competative.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=OH14&Cycle=2004

[dsc]

14. there has to be something wrong with those figures

First, I know she has more than 6k in cash on hand, and I think she spent more than they said she spent on the primary. Both are from local paper coverage and not online anymore. Second, I don't recall us seperating out Kerry's personal money as not being raised. Is a man's money more important than a woman's now?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Kerry has shown that he is able to raise money

Only 7% of Kerry's money has come from him:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

Other sources show that Ms. Cafaro has raised very little money:

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=H4OH14094*2004

Unless she is filing false campaign finance reports, which would be illegal.

[Nazgul35]

2. contact her office...

express your concern and than direct her staff to the Center for America Progress...

They offer talking points on every major issue out there....

If she doesn't take your advice, she isn't bright enough to be a Congresswoman...

[dsc]

3. with all due respect

it isn't her job to discuss or be up to date on Kerry. It is Kerry's job to keep her informed. You don't seriously think those Republican talking points aren't delivered to those Congressmen, do you?

[Nazgul35]

5. Republican talking points?

Have you been to the site?

It isn't Kerry's job to keep her informed...it is her job to keep her informed.

Elections in the US are soley local elections....she is running for that office, not Kerry....if she needs Kerry's help...

:shrug:

try out the site: www.centerforamericanprogress.org

this is a lefty think tank...not a republican...

[dsc]

9. I guess I didn't write very clearly

Here is what I meant to say. First, she is quite capable of speaking to isses. The problem is talking points which benefit the Kerry camapaign as opposed to hers. It isn't her job to deal with questions in regards to Kerry's positions. And I think I made clear in my first post that Kerry's record was the problem here. Second, I didn't mean to say that the sight had Republican talking points. But the Republican candidates sure do, and they get them delivered to them. They don't have to go to some website to look them up. That is the way it should be with Kerry. Why in God's name should any Democrat have to search for that stuff?

[sangh0]

10. Because Kerry recently got done with the primaries

and since then has had to raise millions of dollars, create a few commercials to counter the $40mill Bush* spent last month, continue campaigning while also setting up offices across the country.

He's been a little busy, and sometimes some things have to wait.

[dsc]

11. all by himself?

Bush had primaries too in 2000, for that matter so did Gore. I realize that criticising Kerry is somehow heresy but if Bush can get Republican talking points out, and he clearly is, then why can't Kerry?

[sangh0]

17. Very weak

Bush had primaries too in 2000

Did you notice that Bush* had 0 competitors while Kerry had 9?

I realize that criticising Kerry is somehow heresy but if Bush can get Republican talking points out, and he clearly is, then why can't Kerry?

Since once wasn't enough, I'll repeat

1) Kerry has been preoccupied winning the primaries, raising funds, and setting up offices across the country

2) Bush* has had several months, and beacoup bucks, to organize while Kerry was busy

[dsc]

19. Did you notice I said 2000

where he had Forbes, Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, and Alan Keyes? Did you even read my post when you took such a snarky tone? Is that part of not being weak? Next time you decide to be a snark you might, just might, read the post.

[sangh0]

21. still weak

1) In 2000, Bush*'s only competition was McCain, and that ended pretty early in the primaries. IIRC, by the 2nd week of the primaries

2) Bush* had a shitload of money

3) The RNC had a shitload of money

4) Try comparing what Gore had in 2000 with what Kerry has, instead of what Bush* had in 2000 to what Kerry has in 2004. The Repukes have more organization to support them because they have more money to hire those people.

5) In 2000, Bush* was known to have tied up LOTS of "early money" which allowed him to get a jump-start on organizing. There's nothing like early money. Most of Kerry's money was raised in recent weeks. It takes time to raise it, and it takes time to spend it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Kerry's national campaign organization

[dsc]

23. I responed to your deleted post

I am too lazy to retype.

[sangh0]

20. deleted

I responded to the wrong post

[dsc]

22. Mc Cain won the Michigan caucus

which was on the same date in 2000 as it was in 2004 (by same date I mean same day of week and same week). In comparison Kerry lost only one primary after that date in 2004 and that was Vermont. In short, they both wrapped up at around the same time.

[sangh0]

26. still weak

I thought we were discussing the whole campaign, and not just one state's primary.

In comparison Kerry lost only one primary after that date in 2004 and that was Vermont. In short, they both wrapped up at around the same time.

Kerry still had to fight in primaries after Michigan. I'm very sorry but any argument comparing the Repukes 2000 primary to the Dems 2004 primary are irrelevant AFAIC

[dsc]

27. News flash McCain didn't get assassinated the day after Michigan

He was still viewed as competitive in March and was still in the primaries at the end of March. In contrast every single candidate dropped out this year before March was over (except Kucinich who would be the rough equivalent of Keyes who stayed in as well).

[sangh0]

28. irrelevant

You keep comparing the Repukes 2000 primaries with the Dems 2004 primaries, and I still don't see them as anything but apples and oranges. In 2000, Bush*'s had a huge financial advantage over his one competitor. In 2004, Kerry had a financial disadvantage and several competitors.

Focusing on similarities that are only facial in nature is not going to let me ignore the profound differences between the two primaries. It is far too simplistic to assume that because there are some similarities, they should be the same in all details.

[dsc]

29. not all details just one

I want him to effectively get his message to potential surrogates. Incidently I think even Clinton managed this in 92 and you can't even begin to claim Kerry had a rougher time than Clinton did.

[sangh0]

30. spin

You have been arguing as if all of the differences between the R2000 primary and the D2004 primary were unimportant enough to ignore. Claiming that your request/question is the one detail you are concerned with is disingenously non-responsive. I realize you want Kerry's campaign to attend to one detail, but it's disingenous to claim that that is the difference I was referring to when speaking of the differences between R2000 and D2004.

Basically, I've pointed out why I think R2000 and D2004 are incomparable, and instead of arguing as to why they are comparable, you've brought in Clinton in 1992. So should I assume you agree with my argument that R2000 and D2004 are incomparable, or am I supposed to assume that you still hold that position even though you haven't defended it? I ask because I don't want to waste any time refuting this argument until we finish off with the last argument.

[dsc]

31. No it isn't

This entire thread, and I looked back to be sure, was pretty clearly stated to be about one very specific criticism. I even went so far as to say what I thought would be sufficient to accomplish the need. It would be one thing if I were saying he should be 15 points ahead like Bush was at this point or that he should have raised 100 million dollars like Bush had but I am not. I am simply saying, he should have one employee, spend around a half hour a day (and that is a very high estimate frankly) using email to send talking points about Kerry to Democratic federal candidates, close to half of whom are serving in the federal government as I type this up. This isn't rocket science. It isn't even all that new. This would help him directly reach people he can't now with a minimum of cost and effort. I can guarentee I would be equally upset with Howard Dean if he were the nominee and this came up.

[sangh0]

32. Yes, it is

This entire thread, and I looked back to be sure, was pretty clearly stated to be about one very specific criticism.

True, but in defending your one specific criticism, you started comparing R2000 to D2004, as if the differences between them were unimportant. So while your point is about one specific *criticism*, your argument supporting it ignored the many *differences* between R2000 and D2004.

I am simply saying, he should have one employee, spend around a half hour a day (and that is a very high estimate frankly) using email to send talking points about Kerry to Democratic federal candidates, close to half of whom are serving in the federal government as I type this up.

It might take only one worker to send the emails, but how many people does it take to decide on what those talking points say? How many people, and how much time does it take to organize that effort and find someone who can make those sort of very important decisions?

I think your main point is a good one. Kerry should organize something like this. However, my main complaint is simply that you're jumping the gun. I fully expect that Kerry will be doing something along these lines, and I would be just as disappointed about it if he doesn't. I just think we should give him some time to organize it, which is why none of my posts say this isn't needed. My posts merely argue that he hasn't had time to do this yet.

[dsc]

33. He must have talking points

if he doesn't then we are really in trouble. I am assuming he opens his mouth and has stuff to say. All I am advocating is that whoever types those up sends them to other people. Again, if they don't exist at all, then you are quite right he should do that first.

[sangha]

34. I agree that he must have talking points

but I find you insistence a bit naive. Yes, Kerry has talking points, but they are not necesarily the same thing as what he would want others to say. You are making an important, critical, and complicated process sound like child's play. It's not.

It takes people to work 24 hours a day, reading the print media, watching cable and TV, and listening to the radio. It also involves talking to the media, as oftentimes they will alert a campaign to a story that's about to break. It's not easy.

[dsc]

35. These were ads running for over two weeks

I had seen the ad in question at least a dozen times. This wasn't some 24 hour news cycle thing.

[Nazgul35]

6. Not only that...

but it is a Progressive think tank started up by Leon Paneta...

At the site you can find info on Dem Talking points for 25 policy areas,10 regions of conflict and various articles and columns written by some of the best policy and economic minds of our time...

So again, drop by the site, than tell her about it...

[Democat]

7. Good question - call the Kerry campaign and ask them!

If they don't give you a good enough answer, then get 100 of your friends to call as well. It might not change them, but at least it will annoy them. :)

We aren't going to win this without organization and strategy, because Bush has both.

[Adelante]

12. By the time 100 people call the Kerry campaign

Just one of them could have long printed out Kerry's talking points and provided them to this legislator.

[dsc]

13. Every single day?

Jesus Christ, he does have a staff, does he not? I mean Bush is able to get his talking points out. Clinton was. Gore was. It seems that it isn't outrageous to expect, in the age of email, that Kerry's campaign could find the time to email the fewer that 500 and all but certainly fewer than 450 federal candidates with talking points. It seems that after the list was compiled all this would take is typing it up on a computer and pressing send. Is that really too difficult for a campaign which by now must have hundreds of paid employees?

[mobuto]

15. Congressional candidates don't need talking points

Its their job to be informed. Serious candidates have staff, they have money, and presumably they have something in the way of qualifications. There's no excuse for them not knowing what's what.

John Kerry can't hold their hand. Its their job to command the issues. And to the extent that they get outside help, it has to come from the DNC/DCCC. Kerry has his own election to win - he can't micromanage 435 House races.

[dsc]

16. I guess I just am too dumb or something

But I think I made it clear in my post. The only question that I mentioned, and the only one she couldn't answer was about KERRY'S RECORD . I know that Bush does this for Republican candidates. I know Clinton did it. It is KERRY'S JOB to disemminate KERRY'S CAMPAIGN'S talking points. But frankly I have had it. I really have. No more advice, no more talking about Kerry from now on.

[dsc]

18. BTW I reread my original post

and quite bluntly I think many people who responded didn't. I was told by many of you to send those details to her. I made clear I had done exactly that. Here is the sentence:

I told her about them and sent the details.

I also was told that Congressional candidates should know about issues. Again, I made clear this was about Kerry's record, or in this case about Cheney's. Here is the sentence.

She didn't know about Cheney nor Bush's economic advisor's having suggested a gas tax increase.

Now I admit I am not always clear when I post. Here I was. But as I said in another post on this thread you all win. I will never, ever, ever say another word about Kerry.

[Larkspur]

24. Because Kerry can't figure out what position to take on the issues

His "nuanced" positions would require the other Dem candidates to rent a forklift to carry the Kerry's talking points and most Dem candidates don't have that kind of money to spend. :evilgrin: